| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 274 of 25.7.2019 Decided on: 4.1.2023 Dr.Arvind Sharma s/o Sh.Hari Krishan Sharma, R/o H. No.4, Friends Colony, Lehal Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus 1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director. 2. The Assistant Executive Engineer/DS West Commercial Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala. …………Opposite Parties Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act QUORUM Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, President Sh.G.S.Nagi,Member ARGUED BY Sh.Mayank Malahotra, counsel for complainant. Sh.Kuldeep Sharma, counsel for OPs. ORDER S.K.AGGARWAL,PRESIDENT - The instant complaint is filed by Dr.Arvind Sharma s/o Sh.Hari Krishan Sharma(hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
- It is averred that the complainant is using domestic electric connection bearing No.3002607481 with the sanctioned load of 10.99KW and has been making the payment of energy bills sent by the OPs from time to time. It is further averred that the OPs supplied bill dated 3.5.23019 showing an amount of Rs.40437/- as sundry charges. The complainant visited office of OPs but no explanation was given regarding sundry charges. It is further averred that no notice has ever been served upon the complainant by the competent authority of the OPs and that the action of the OPs in demanding arrears in the bills dated 30.5.2019 and 3.7.2019 without any actual outstanding towards the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Consequently, prayer has thus been made for acceptance of the complaint.
- Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed the written statement by taking various preliminary objections.
- On merits, it is admitted that bill dated 30.5.2019 was served upon the complainant. It is also admitted that the complainant visited the office of OP No.2 and he was explained in length regarding the sundry charges of Rs.40437/-. It is further submitted that after going through the record, the OPs issued bill dated 1.8.2019 amounting to Rs.49750/- in which Rs.5685/- was as consumption charges and the remaining amount was only sundry charges/remained balance against complainant.
- It is further submitted that earlier the house/premises were in the name of Sukhdev Singh C/o Narain House Patiala. An electricity connection bearing No.3000029219 was installed and an amount of Rs.1,22,432/- was shown to be arrears. Thereafter on 29.1.2014 the amount of Rs.122432/- in equal shares was to be paid by Mandeep Kaur against the electricity connection No.3000320287 and Rajbans Kaur having electric connection No.3000315695 was shown to be recovered in proportionate i.e. Rs.61216/-.Rajbans Kaur deposited Rs.67980/- but due to some clerical mistake the entry was got reversed on dated 20.2.2015 and still the amount of Rs.1,22,432/- was recoverable from the said premises. It is further submitted that on 13.2.2019 checking was made by AAE and his team, wherein it was found that in the place of Narain House, three new houses are carried in the name of Baljinder Singh bearing account No.3001142196, Lal Singh having account No.3000335067 and Arvind Sharma having account No.3002607481 and to recover the amount of Rs.1,22,432/- the OPs sent the bills proportionately in three shares to the persons in possession of the said premises. It is further averred that Baljinder Singh deposited Rs.44952 on 11.9.2019, Lal Singh deposited Rs.40482/- on dated 6.8.2019 and when the complainant visited office of OP No.2 he was shown A&A form signed by him that having stated therein that ‘in case of transfer of property by sale/inheritance , the purchaser/heir shall be liable to pay all charges due with respect to such property and found subsequently recoverable from the consumer”. As such the complainant is liable to pay sundry charges of Rs.40,437/- alongwith interest and penalties, if any .There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments , the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of his complaint, the complainant through his counsel furnished his affidavit,Ex.CA alongwith documents,Exs.C1 to Ex.C9 copies of bills and receipts and has closed the evidence.
- In rebuttal, the ld counsel for OPs tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Om Parkash, SDO, West Commercial, PSPCL, alongwith documents,Ex.OP1 copy of bill dated 30.5.2019, Ex.OP2 copy of bill dated 3.7.2019,Ex.OP3 bill dated 1.8.2019,Ex.OP4 account statement of Mandeep Kaur ,Ex.OP5 account statement of Rajbans Kaur, Ex.OP6 report regarding Sukhdev Singh account,Ex.OP7 account statement Baljinder Singh,Ex.OP8 account statement of Lal Singh,Ex.OP9 A&A form,Ex.OP10 copy of instruction of supply code and has closed the evidence.
- Concededly, Dr.Arvind Sharma s/o Sh.Hari Krishan Sharma is consumer of OPs having domestic electric connection bearing A/c No.3002607481 with sanctioned load of 10.99KW. The OPs vide bill,Ex.C8 raised the demand of sundry charges to the tune of Rs.40,438/-.
- After hearing ld. counsel of both sides of the parties and having gone through the record of the case, carefully, the question arises for determination before this Commission is whether the OPs are justified to do so.The answer is negative.
- From the perusal of the record, it is transpires that an amount of Rs.1,22,432/- was outstanding against Sh.Sukhdev Singh c/o Narain House, Patiala against account No. No.3000029219. The said outstanding amount was then charged to Mandeep Kaur having electricity a/c No.3000320287 and Rajbans Kaur having electric connection No.3000315695 vide Exs.OP4 and OP5 who were the occupants of the said premises, in equal proportion amounting to Rs.61216/-each. The said amount of Rs.61216/- was deposited by Mandeep Kaur in two installments of Rs.21550/- on 31.3.2014 and Rs.46430/- on 14.10.2014. However, it is argument of the OPs that due to clerical mistake said amount of Rs.61216/-was reversed and refunded to Mandeep Kaur on 25.2.2015.And the amount of Rs.61216/- charged to Rajbans Kaur having a/c No.3000315695 was never paid. However, it is not understandable as to why and under what circumstances the recovered amount from Mandeep Kaur was refunded to her. Even it is not clarified as to what kind of clerical mistake has occurred. If the said amount was not refunded to Mandeep Kaur then the question of recovering the same from the present complainant would not have arisen in as much as it is the case of the OPs that other outstanding amount was paid by other occupants Baljinder Singh and Lal Singh.
- Not only this, ld. counsel for the complainant has relied upon Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act,2003, which states that, “ Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this Section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity”.
- In such a scenario, the OPs cannot be permitted to take benefit of the regulation 30.15 of the Supply Code, Ex.OP10 , wherein it has been stated that, “ In case of transfer of property by sale/inheritance, the purchaser/heir shall be liable to pay all charges due with respect to such property and found subsequently recoverable from the consumer”. As such this amount was charged in violation of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, since the period of almost five years has elapsed from the time the amount was charged in the first instance and is against the provisions.
- In view of our above consideration, the complaint is allowed and the amount of Rs.40438/- charged as sundry charges in the bill dated 30.5.2018 is setaside. The amount of interest/surcharge, if any, charged to the consumer on account of above said bill is also setaside. However, the complainant is liable to pay actual consumption charges shown in the disputed bill. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
- The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work, Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
- G.S.Nagi S.K.AGGARWAL
Member President | |
